thismyvoice wrote:Skyrocketing housing price, medical cost, congested public transport, cost of education and a general sense of unfairness plays a bigger part.

But these are not limited to Singapore. Whenever a city become a big financial centre, then along with prosperity you have all these side effects. All major financial centres have these problems, London, New York, Tokyo, Hong Kong, Sydney and yes Shanghai too.

If you ask me, Singaporeans are better off than people living in all these cities. Singaporeans pay way lower taxes and a HDB house is almost guaranteed to them once they marry.

Japan is in such a pathetic situation right now, because of their terrible demographics. They dont need those stupids stunts called abenomics, what they need is massive immigration. But they wont do that, because people of Japan want to remain homogeneous.

thismyvoice wrote:Skyrocketing housing price, medical cost, congested public transport, cost of education and a general sense of unfairness plays a bigger part.

But these are not limited to Singapore. Whenever a city become a big financial centre, then along with prosperity you have all these side effects. All major financial centres have these problems, London, New York, Tokyo, Hong Kong, Sydney and yes Shanghai too.

If you ask me, Singaporeans are better off than people living in all these cities. Singaporeans pay way lower taxes and a HDB house is almost guaranteed to them once they marry.

Japan is in such a pathetic situation right now, because of their terrible demographics. They dont need those stupids stunts called abenomics, what they need is massive immigration. But they wont do that, because people of Japan want to remain homogeneous.

I did not say you are wrong. Yes, Singapore is definitely better than many other countries, and much of this is due to good governance. It is just harder for people to appreciate that. Besides, the thinking may very well be, "if I am going to pay you politicians the highest salary in the world, why should I lower my standard or expectations?"

Being a financial centre does not benefit everyone. For some, being a financial centre is detrimental to their well-being. In that case, why vote for someone that makes your life difficult? This is why measures were introduced recently to address this.

HDB is good and cheap, but it is getting pricier. Newer flats are more expensive but very much smaller compared to older ones. One of the biggest failure of this government is that they allowed property price to rise so much. It is easily the biggest expenditure in a household. Many people felt trapped having to pay such an astronomical sum. It is also a very divisive issue. Some wants it to go up while others want it to come down. They "snookered" themselves into this situation. Lets see how they untangle this mess.

thismyvoice wrote:HDB is good and cheap, but it is getting pricier. Newer flats are more expensive but very much smaller compared to older ones. One of the biggest failure of this government is that they allowed property price to rise so much. It is easily the biggest expenditure in a household. Many people felt trapped having to pay such an astronomical sum. It is also a very divisive issue. Some wants it to go up while others want it to come down. They "snookered" themselves into this situation. Lets see how they untangle this mess.

Actually its the opposite, because Singapore gahmen has no political opposition, it is able to bring prices into control by putting in measures, which gahmen in no other country can do.

Take a look at the world’s dizzying surges in the price of housing for 12 months at the end of June: London, up 20 percent. Manhattan, 18 percent. Sydney, 15.4 percent.

Then there are Singapore and Hong Kong: down 3.7 percent and 0.6 percent.

Prompted by concerns over potential property bubbles and affordability for the middle class, the governments of the two Asian cities have been reining in home prices by imposing measures including mortgage caps, taxes on property flippers, and levies on foreign buyers as high as 15 percent.

“Hong Kong has successfully cooled down the market in terms of transactions and turnover,” said Raymond Yeung, senior economist at Australia & New Zealand Banking Group Ltd. in Hong Kong. “Singapore has been more effective.”

So could New York, London and other global cities facing soaring housing prices pull off the same act?

Not really. Hong Kong and Singapore’s island geographies, preponderance of public housing resulting in two-tier housing markets and citizens willing to tolerate government directives make the cities unique, according to academics and researchers. London and New York have nowhere near the same level of control over their economies and the behavior of their residents.

Having Clout

Singapore and Hong Kong, as a special administrative region of China, have governments with policy-making power over their entire geographic areas, where they are relatively free of political opposition from neighborhood groups or borough councils that stymie directives or mitigate their effectiveness. The Asian cities control the land supply and are the biggest landlords.

That allows them to implement decisive policy measures. For example, in January 2013, the Monetary Authority of Singapore, effectively the central bank and chief regulator, cut the mortgage ratio allowable on purchases of second homes while more than doubling minimum down payments from 10 percent to 25 percent. The banks had no choice but to follow.

“Imagine doing something like this in the U.S. where there are 7,000 banks and many regulators,” said Sumit Agarwal, a professor in economics, finance and real estate at the National University of Singapore. “It’s a nightmare from the policy point of view and would be impossible.”

Hong Kong and Singapore haven’t shied away from using taxes to discriminate against foreign buyers -- something other locales with surging prices have yet to do. Non-permanent residents in both cities are subject to an additional 15 percent tax when they buy property, except in Singapore where Americans are exempted by treaty.

Everything is relative. You think the prices are high. But they could have been much higher, if the gahmen had not put in those cooling measures. There are not many places where they have 15% ABSD on foreigners while locals enjoy buying property for cheap and then renting out to foreigners to make a killing.

Take a look at the world’s dizzying surges in the price of housing for 12 months at the end of June: London, up 20 percent. Manhattan, 18 percent. Sydney, 15.4 percent.

Then there are Singapore and Hong Kong: down 3.7 percent and 0.6 percent.

Prompted by concerns over potential property bubbles and affordability for the middle class, the governments of the two Asian cities have been reining in home prices by imposing measures including mortgage caps, taxes on property flippers, and levies on foreign buyers as high as 15 percent.

“Hong Kong has successfully cooled down the market in terms of transactions and turnover,” said Raymond Yeung, senior economist at Australia & New Zealand Banking Group Ltd. in Hong Kong. “Singapore has been more effective.”

So could New York, London and other global cities facing soaring housing prices pull off the same act?

Not really. Hong Kong and Singapore’s island geographies, preponderance of public housing resulting in two-tier housing markets and citizens willing to tolerate government directives make the cities unique, according to academics and researchers. London and New York have nowhere near the same level of control over their economies and the behavior of their residents.

Having Clout

Singapore and Hong Kong, as a special administrative region of China, have governments with policy-making power over their entire geographic areas, where they are relatively free of political opposition from neighborhood groups or borough councils that stymie directives or mitigate their effectiveness. The Asian cities control the land supply and are the biggest landlords.

That allows them to implement decisive policy measures. For example, in January 2013, the Monetary Authority of Singapore, effectively the central bank and chief regulator, cut the mortgage ratio allowable on purchases of second homes while more than doubling minimum down payments from 10 percent to 25 percent. The banks had no choice but to follow.

“Imagine doing something like this in the U.S. where there are 7,000 banks and many regulators,” said Sumit Agarwal, a professor in economics, finance and real estate at the National University of Singapore. “It’s a nightmare from the policy point of view and would be impossible.”

Hong Kong and Singapore haven’t shied away from using taxes to discriminate against foreign buyers -- something other locales with surging prices have yet to do. Non-permanent residents in both cities are subject to an additional 15 percent tax when they buy property, except in Singapore where Americans are exempted by treaty.

Everything is relative. You think the prices are high. But they could have been much higher, if the gahmen had not put in those cooling measures. There are not many places where they have 15% ABSD on foreigners while locals enjoy buying property for cheap and then renting out to foreigners to make a killing.

The Spore government did a better job. It does not mean they performed well. Even if they performed well, it does not mean everyone will be pleased. Perception is sometimes more important than reality. If people feel the government can do better, should have foreseen the problem earlier, put in the measures earlier, then that is the perception they have. The explanations that come later become excuses. After all, as you mentioned yourself, the government being the largest landlord and having the law behind it can greatly influence property prices. When the government say that they will keep property affordable, the people believe. After a few years and countless measures, people starts to lose faith.

What was reported in Bloomberg was for the past 12 months. Singapore property price has skyrocketed for the past 5 years.

Lastly, I think the Spore government is a competent one and the MIW will still win the next election, but with less votes. It is hard to change people's perception.

The funny part of all this is that it's the exact same people crying about the costs of upgrading to a new, bigger flat that were begging to be allowed to sell on the open market and then hold out for the highest bidders for their flat, thus driving up the prices. Their memories are about as long as their woodies. Looking at the TFR, their memories are not long indeed.

thismyvoice wrote:they allowed property price to rise so much. It is easily the biggest expenditure in a household. Many people felt trapped having to pay such an astronomical sum. It is also a very divisive issue. Some wants it to go up while others want it to come down. They "snookered" themselves into this situation. Lets see how they untangle this mess.

I remember travelling to Norway, where salaries are huge, prices in general too, but housing is remarkably cheap by comparison.

Nothing wrong with allowing people to invest freely in stocks, currencies, bonds, funds, but not something as essential as housing. This is not a market that should be played as freely as any of the other typical financial vehicles. That is what Norway did right - they took housing off the "casino floor."

Now this is a country that is quite big and with a very small population. It isn't a prime choice for anyone as a place of residence/work either. And still they did this.

You'd think that in a city-state, with a more delicate housing market than almost any place on the planet, something similar would exist to prevent one of the most basic of commodities from becoming a speculative product...

thismyvoice wrote:they allowed property price to rise so much. It is easily the biggest expenditure in a household. Many people felt trapped having to pay such an astronomical sum. It is also a very divisive issue. Some wants it to go up while others want it to come down. They "snookered" themselves into this situation. Lets see how they untangle this mess.

I remember travelling to Norway, where salaries are huge, prices in general too, but housing is remarkably cheap by comparison.

Nothing wrong with allowing people to invest freely in stocks, currencies, bonds, funds, but not something as essential as housing. This is not a market that should be played as freely as any of the other typical financial vehicles. That is what Norway did right - they took housing off the "casino floor."

Now this is a country that is quite big and with a very small population. It isn't a prime choice for anyone as a place of residence/work either. And still they did this.

You'd think that in a city-state, with a more delicate housing market than almost any place on the planet, something similar would exist to prevent one of the most basic of commodities from becoming a speculative product...

But housing here is intended to be a speculative product: A one way speculative product. Happy rats, who feel richer every year, keep on hitting the same old 'Vote for [X]' pedal, as it promises them more tasty feed pellets next year, and as we all know any other vote spells ruin, damnation, and a plague upon your whole extended family, and the nation '!!!'.

Norway is an unusual economy. They're quite well paid, but they pay insane taxes. A lot goes into their sovereign wealth fund (SWF), which dwarfs Singapore's. The average pension is very generous. They are very used to surviving through bad winters and storing away food. Similarly their SWF is meant to sustain a decent lifestyle for the populace in the future, even after their natural resources are theoretically exhausted.

You are either a free market economy or you are not. I think the SG gahmen has done more than what is warranted to control property prices, which is not expected out of free market economies. Look at prices in Hong Kong, Sydney and London. Singapore has done a good job.

Wd40 wrote:You are either a free market economy or you are not. I think the SG gahmen has done more than what is warranted to control property prices, which is not expected out of free market economies. Look at prices in Hong Kong, Sydney and London. Singapore has done a good job.

I hope the Government here appreciates all your positive comments regarding how they are doing things when they are evaluating your PR application.

Did you provide them with a link to this website so they can see how much you believe in them?

Wd40 wrote:You are either a free market economy or you are not. I think the SG gahmen has done more than what is warranted to control property prices, which is not expected out of free market economies. Look at prices in Hong Kong, Sydney and London. Singapore has done a good job.

I hope the Government here appreciates all your positive comments regarding how they are doing things when they are evaluating your PR application.

Did you provide them with a link to this website so they can see how much you believe in them?

If they were to do Google search based on that, they would find his honorary mention on TRE

Wd40 wrote:You are either a free market economy or you are not. I think the SG gahmen has done more than what is warranted to control property prices, which is not expected out of free market economies. Look at prices in Hong Kong, Sydney and London. Singapore has done a good job.

I hope the Government here appreciates all your positive comments regarding how they are doing things when they are evaluating your PR application.

Did you provide them with a link to this website so they can see how much you believe in them?

Well, the fact is, I have benefited by staying here for the last 5 and half years and will continue to benefit as long as I stay here. So I don't see any reason to criticize the gahmen, whether or not I get PR. Getting PR ofcourse will be the icing on the cake